CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA7CAEB5D { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 1 April 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 48303/14 Vladimir Vyacheslavovich MARETSKIY against Ukraine and 7 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. A.     Background information In March 2014 demonstrations by anti-government groups took place in the Lugansk region of Ukraine. In April 2014 these demonstrations escalated into an armed conflict . The Ukrainian Government decided to hold presidential elections over the entire territory of Ukraine, including the Lugansk region, on 25 May 2014. B.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. At around 2 p.m. on 25 May 2014, the day of the presidential elections, Ro., V., Rod., and the applicants, who were carrying firearms, entered a polling station located in the town of Bakhmutovka, in the Lugansk region, took the ballot box, ballots and documentation of the electoral commission and walked away. About one hour later they carried out the same action in a polling station located in the town of Bezginovo, in the Lugansk region. After the applicants, Ro., V., and Rod. had left Bezginovo and were driving along a road in their cars they were arrested by Ukrainian servicemen, who had been informed about the actions which the applicants had carried out on the same day at the polling stations. The servicemen put bags on the applicants’ heads, handcuffed them and kicked them. On the next day the applicants were transported to Kharkiv and put in cells in the building of the State Security Service (“the SBU”). On 27 May 2014 the SBU instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants, stating that on 25 May 2014 they had committed terrorist attacks on the two polling stations. On 28 May 2014 the SBU questioned D. and T., who had driven the applicants to the polling stations on 25 May 2014 and seen them entering the polling stations while carrying firearms. L., one of the servicemen who had detained the applicants on 25   May   2014, was questioned by the SBU and stated that he had indeed detained them. In the evening of 29 May 2014 all the applicants were brought before the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv which, by eight separate decisions, ordered their pre-trial detention until 27 July 2014. The court noted that the pre-trial detention of Mr Maretskiy and Mr   Kopylov was necessary because they did not have any social ties in Kharkiv; in addition, they were suspected of having committed the attacks together with other unidentified persons, and, if at liberty, they could contact those unidentified persons and thus hinder the investigation. In respect of the other applicants the court noted that their detention was justified because, if at liberty, they could abscond, hinder the investigation or reoffend. In addition, the crime with which they had been charged was particularly serious. The applicants were placed in the Kharkiv SIZO (a pre-trial detention facility). On various dates the applicants complained to the authorities that they had been ill-treated during their arrest; however, the complaints were not investigated. On 5, 20 and 24 June 2014 doctors examined Mr Maretskiy, Mr   Chernyshenko and Mr Bayramov, respectively, and found bruises and scars on their bodies. The doctors concluded that the injuries of Mr   Maretskiy had been inflicted more than seven to ten days previously. On 10 and 20 June 2014 Mr Bayramov complained to the prosecutors that his detention from 25 to 29 May 2014 had been unlawful. The prosecutors replied that it was impossible to investigate the complaint because the servicemen who had arrested him were in the Lugansk region, where an anti-terrorist operation against separatists was ongoing. On 23 July 2014 the Kyivskyy District Court extended the detention of Mr Chornyy until 24 September 2014 on the ground that the investigating authorities needed time to carry out certain investigative measures. The court also noted that the applicant had committed the offence together with other unidentified persons who had not been detained, and that if released, he could contact them and thus hinder the investigation. On 23 July 2014 the Kyivskyy District Court – in the presence of Mr   Bayramov, who was kept in a metal cage – extended Mr Bayramov’s detention until 24 September 2014. On 12 September 2014 the prosecutors terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr Bayramov and Mr Chernyshenko and ordered their release from the SIZO. From 12 to 14 September 2014 both applicants were held in cells in the premises of the SBU without any legal basis. On 23 October 2014 the Court asked Mr Chernyshenko to provide documents i) proving that the criminal proceedings against him had been terminated, and ii) containing information concerning the date on which he had been released from detention. The applicant asked the prosecutors to give him such documents, but received no reply. COMPLAINTS All the applicants complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that during their arrest they were ill-treated and that this was not duly investigated. Mr Bayramov additionally complains that during the court hearing on 23 July 2014 he was held in a metal cage. All the applicants, except Mr Chernyshenko, complain that they were not brought before a judge “immediately” after their arrest, as Article 5 of the Convention requires. All the applicants, except Mr Chornyy, complain under Article 5 of the Convention that the decision of 29 May 2014 was not sufficiently reasoned; in particular, there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed a crime and the court did not consider the possibility of applying to them non ‑ custodial preventive measures. Mr Chornyy complains that the decision of 23 July 2014 was not sufficiently reasoned. Mr Bayramov complains under Article 5 that his detention between 25   and 29 May 2014 was unlawful and that his complaint in this respect was not investigated (Article 13 of the Convention).   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions concerning all applications   1.     Were the applicants subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention during their arrest on 25 May 2014? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment on 25 May 2014 by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   Additional question for applications nos. 48303/14, 50470/14, 58077/14, 68055/14, 69387/14, 69567/14, 71350/14   In so far as the decisions of the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv of 29   May 2014 are concerned, was the applicants’ detention in breach of Article 5 § 1   of the Convention?   Additional questions for applications nos. 48303/14, 50470/14, 58077/14, 58420/14, 69387/14, 69567/14, 71350/14   Were the applicants brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   Additional questions for application no. 71350/14   1.     Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage on 23 July 2014 during a hearing before the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   113-39, ECHR   2014 (extracts))? 2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty between 25 and 29   May   2014 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? 3.     Did he have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint concerning the lawfulness of his detention between 25 and 29   May 2014, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   Additional question for application no. 58420/14   As far as the court decision of 23 July 2014 is concerned, was the applicant’s detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to be tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial? Appendix No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by   48303/14 25/06/2014 Vladimir Vyacheslavovich MARETSKIY 21/06/1972 Raygorodka Ukrainian Yevgeniy Valeriyevich NADOLYA   50470/14 02/07/2014 Viktor Ivanovich KOPYLOV 22/10/1973 Tsarivka Ukrainian Yevgeniy Valeriyevich NADOLYA   58077/14 11/08/2014 Sergey Gennadyevich GOCHAROV 10/08/1978 Raygorodka Ukrainian Dmitriy Anatolyevich TIKHONENKOV   58420/14 15/08/2014 Aleksandr Nikolayevich CHORNYY 20/02/1970 Bakhmutovka Ukrainian Yevgeniy Valeriyevich NADOLYA   68055/14 12/10/2014 Vitaliy Vladimirovich CHERNYSHENKO 25/05/1974 Bezgynove Ukrainian Aleksandr Sergeyevich SHADRIN   69387/14 15/10/2014 Dmitriy Petrovich SVIRIDOV 14/11/1974 Tsarivka Ukrainian Dmitriy Anatolyevich TIKHONENKOV   69567/14 15/10/2014 Yevgeniy Vasilyevich PECHEGIN 17/01/1981 Raygorodka Ukrainian Dmitriy Anatolyevich TIKHONENKOV   71350/14 27/10/2014 Valekh Ilyas Ogly BAYRAMOV 05/11/1969 Raygorodka Ukrainian Aleksandr Sergeyevich SHADRIN